ScuroFantasma
03.07.16 | Combination of how much I enjoy it and how well I think it achieved what it does. Mostly the enjoyment though, but I like to consider other components like how the band fits together, experiementation, riff and sound quality etc. |
Piglet
03.07.16 | JUS FAURKN WATEVA OI FEEL LOIKE MATE |
Cryptkeeper
03.07.16 | If I spin it regularly, it's a 4, does it do something special/unique/extraordinary well, it's a 4,5. If it has sentimental value/is the epitome of the genre/has a massive influence on music, it's a 5. |
Mort.
03.07.16 | 4 basically means id listen to the album as a whole again in the future with a few songs off it ill listen to regularly, 4.5 is a brilliant album which im probs gonna listen to a fair few songs off of it quite regularly and a 5 is an album i love every song off and can listen to again and again
those are the only important ratings imo anything below a 4 just gets rated on how i intuitively feel. Well tbh nearly all my ratings are intuitive |
Keyblade
03.07.16 | impulse |
hesperus
03.07.16 | Usually if it deserves a place on my 64GB smartphone, it's at least a 4. 4.5s I could really sing the praises of, and 5s just blow me away with how great they sound. 3.5s are good, but either don't sound quite good enough for me to want to return to them on a regular basis, or aren't consistent enough for me to always want to listen to the entire album. If the rating is lower than that, it's just a question of how I feel about the album on a scale from "okay" to "dear god make it stop". |
smaugman
03.07.16 | I tend to compare artwork with how much I like an album. When i look at it and say "this is great", the it's a 4. If it got some nice songs and some bad, it's a 3,5. A 5 is an album where every track is "wow!". 2,5 is bad, 2 is poor. 1,5 is shit. 1 is albums i give 1 without listening because fuck them |
Artuma
03.07.16 | "1 is albums i give 1 without listening because fuck them"
perfect logic right there |
guitarded_chuck
03.07.16 | I don't think about it too much. I tend to rate after one listen too and rarely does my rating change over time. Sometimes it does. |
Gwyn.
03.07.16 | I don't like thinking about that much, I didn't like rating for a very long time because thinking about this. I can't really be specific enough with my taste to always be thinking "Oh yes, I like this more than approximately 60% of albums I've heard" or some shit which is why I'm ignoring Sput's system/number labels and just using my own where I leave all ratings from 5.0 to 4.0 to my top 100 albums, 3.0s to anything that I like and even love but wouldn't crack that high, 2.0 to mediocrity and 1.0 to true shit |
NakedSnake
03.07.16 | For 4.5s and 5s you just kind of know. |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | 5.0 -- masterpiece
4.5 -- close to masterpiece, makes me feel strong things
4.0 -- very good, close to making me feel strong things
3.5 -- good, got a lot going on, has some jams (~4); would listen no problem
3.0 -- good; might not have a lot going on, but it's well-constructed
2.5 -- average; not bad but it doesn't elevate itself above by having good things going on; might have some flaws
2.0 -- has obvious flaws here and there, album could benefit from improving these
1.5 -- has obvious flaws, and they detract a lot from the album
1.0 -- ass; has nothing going on to make it worthwhile at all |
LotusFlower
03.07.16 | Arbitrary numbers that reflect my enjoyment/quality of album. |
smaugman
03.07.16 | Agreed, spongebob album makes me feel certain things... |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | Can you feel it now, Mr. Krabs? |
zakalwe
03.07.16 | For me a 5 can still have its faults. The album as a whole has something that countless others haven't and it's what pushes it above the rest. |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | yah, flaws ain't killin a masterpiece |
MyNameIsPencil
03.07.16 | Online Randomizer |
SitruK6
03.07.16 | Thanks everyone who has answered.
i think i have a better idea of how i would like to rate albums from now on ^_^ |
SitruK6
03.07.16 | of course if anyone has something they would like to add, feel free to do it. |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | i would like to add that y'all need to listen to The Gathering's newest live album |
gryndstone
03.07.16 | 5's to me are either:
4.5's that I appreciate more as time goes on
Something that strongly influences my music taste
Has a strong connection to my personal life
4's are things that probably have a place on my smartphone/music player of choice.
A 3.5 is something i might cherry pick a few songs off of to listen to now and then
3's are good efforts, but not for me
2.5's got some big issues bruh gotta work on it
2's is disappointment. Very little entertainment/replay value
1.5's are not worth listening to, but get half a point for effort.
A 1 is an atrocity not fit for this planet
|
Valkyrion
03.07.16 | I don't think too much about them on the spot but it's painful when I look back at them after some time and i fix some lol, at least the 3.5+ ratings
I can never decide if I want to rate on merit or how much i like it lately |
Log S.
03.07.16 | usually just look at an album and say "good," "great," "amazing" etc & choose the corresponding number or whatever
sort of a gut reaction kinda thing, only if i've heard the album a certain number of times though, really |
gryndstone
03.07.16 | I tend to rate too high too early myself |
Sevengill
03.07.16 | You don't choose a rating. The rating chooses you. |
Aftertheascension
03.07.16 | http://www.sputnikmusic.com/list.php?memberid=1044207&listid=158314 |
smaugman
03.07.16 | many people seem to think pioneering a genre makes an album good. for example sex pistols album is like, horrible, but many people are like "omg omg so influential, have a 5" |
Aftertheascension
03.07.16 | sex pistols are ass agreed |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | ye |
Artuma
03.07.16 | they are terrible agreed but influence is something that has to be respected |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | not necessarily |
Valkyrion
03.07.16 | I'd say being "unique" or "definitive" to this day are more important qualities to rate on, as a fan. History and influence would definitely be more important if I had more of an interest in that field |
zakalwe
03.07.16 | The pistols fucking rule.
|
DoofusWainwright
03.07.16 | 5 - will need to be close to perfect throughout, plus at least three or four outstanding 'classic' songs
4.5 - needs to be excellent throughout, plus a couple of classic songs in there too
4 - either excellent throughout, or very good with a couple of classics to lift it up a level (everything 4 and above is 'must purchase')
3.5 - either half excellent half ok, or just all great, possibly a classic tune on there (50/50 whether I purchase)
3 - overall better than average or I like half of it a lot, shame about the other half (everything 3 and below I'll prob cherry pick songs to purchase, if any)
2.5 - either a mixed bag or an uninspiring set that's merely average
2 - not embarrassing but not my thing, if it's a band I already like then they've let themselves down on this one
1.5 - it's music, it's just bad music to my taste, I get it has an audience just not me
1 - either I barely consider it music, it's totally laughable or its an artist that outright irritates (however objectively proficient they are)
|
Log S.
03.07.16 | The pistols fucking rule. [2] |
onionbubs
03.07.16 | a lot goes into an album rating i guess. what works, what doesnt work, lyricism, instrumentation, looking at it in the context of what it is, personal enjoyment, etc.
because of all of this, i recently bumped the who's quadrophenia to a 5. |
smaugman
03.07.16 | no [66662626266262626262] |
LoLifant
03.07.16 | how are the vocals? are they heavily edited? how's the production overall? is the album cohesive without the songs sounding the same? how varied are they? does it feel original compared to others from the genre or are there just the same generic riffs and breakdowns? only accounts for the musically potential 4,5's and 5's: how are the lyrics?
guess there's even more but in the end a lot of it comes down to subjective feels which leads to a variance of probably +/- 0.5
1.0 = garbage
1.5 = garbage with hints of potential
2.0 = one or two interesting songs, maybe hints of potential within the forgettable rest
2.5 = average (which doesn't mean bad) stuff with maybe one to three more interesting tracks
after that it becomes more complicated and subjective |
smaugman
03.07.16 | nice 2 for rust in peace lol |
onionbubs
03.07.16 | i can dig the pistols from time to time. |
DoofusWainwright
03.07.16 | A lot of people thinking this is playing music historian - there's zero objectivity in these ratings, it's all subjective.
You can say you're objectively rating something because it's technically great or well established as being influential but you are subjectively deciding that you think that's important. Better to just rate on how much you like something (including its so called objective qualities) |
LoLifant
03.07.16 | there's objectivity up to a certain point imo. but of course one can always disagree with objective aspects not being relevant. objectivity can be achieved through defining relevant aspects beforehand. overuse of autotune for vocals would be an objective flaw imo, but there are probably a bunch of people enjoying it and without a consensus there can't be any objective judgment, right. |
AlexKzillion
03.07.16 | 1.0 = garbage
1.5 = garbage with hints of potential
2.0 = one or two interesting songs, maybe hints of potential within the forgettable rest
2.5 = average (which doesn't mean bad) stuff with maybe one to three more interesting tracks
after that it becomes more complicated and subjective
Pretty much my thinking. |
Valkyrion
03.07.16 | >You can say you're objectively rating something because it's technically great or well established as being influential but you are subjectively deciding that you think that's important. Better to just rate on how much you like something (including its so called objective qualities)
This is obvious but even so personally I'm more inclined to look up to somebody who does consider technical and artistic merit to at least some extent when judging music instead of an individual who bestows anything a top score merely because it "rules". Inevitably this relays to my own rating system as well |
DoofusWainwright
03.07.16 | well, that's pretty much just defining your subjectivity really
Most bands are at least proficient enough to get signed and attract a following, so it's already been objectively decided that they are good enough that their music can potentially be enjoyed by people...the only real question is do you like it?
Then it's a question of saying why. 'I like incredibly technical guitar playing and guttural screams with a faint Eastern European accent'. All subjective |
wtferrothorn
03.07.16 | 5 - Bascially a 4.5, but it also has personal significance or has influenced my musical taste greatly, as well as being a nearly perfect experience.
4.5 - An innovative, unique piece that consistently delivers track after track.
4 - Really solid, only 1-2 tracks that I don't really feel.
3.5 - Has a good amount of jams, but nothing tooo special
3 - Has 1-2 really great tracks, but overall nothing that really amazed
2.5 - Overall uninteresting, but has a couple minor things going for it
2 - Lacks the positive aspects of a 2.5, but nothing too horrendous
1.5 - Goes out of it's way to get on my nerves, annoys me
1 - A literal insult to my earbuds |
Calc
03.07.16 | rate to impress people on this site that's what i do. |
onionbubs
03.07.16 | 1.0s are rare. only two albums are bad enough in my mind to deserve a 1. and one of them is by freakin arnold schwarzenegger. |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | make them more common. Be respectful of those artists who put effort in their music |
onionbubs
03.07.16 | believe me, a 1.5 is bad enough for some of the worse music ive heard. |
Calc
03.07.16 | "1.0s are rare. only two albums are bad enough in my mind to deserve a 1. and one of them is by freakin arnold schwarzenegger."
how fucking dare you... |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | how fucking dare you [2] |
hal1ax
03.07.16 | 2.5 ~ bland. no replay value
3.0 ~ i like some things about it, but it's mostly uninteresting. *might* return to it.
3.5 ~ i like it. it doesn't floor me but i enjoy it for the most part. has replay value
4.0 ~ love it. these albums are in my everyday rotation. high replay value
4.5 ~ obsessive, elated love. constantly listening to these.
5.0 ~ 4.5's that have aged exceptionally well. |
Zig
03.07.16 | The main reason is the impact and influence the album/piece has on me and what I determinate as essential, positively and negatively.
The others reasons are the musicality, production, lyrics, artistic honesty and so on.
But my musical taste tends to be experimental, so I don't give a fuck about the commercial and critical success, Grammys and that bullshit. |
BenThatsMyJamin
03.07.16 | Three simple criteria:
1) How much I personally like it
2) How 'objectively' good I think it is (level of talent on display, quality of songwriting etc.)
3) How good it 'feels' (basically gut instinct) |
dbizzles
03.07.16 | Generally a 5 has had to last the test of time. I don't think I've 5'd an album within a year of it being released in a long time, so 4.5's are in abundance in my ratings. I also rarely give out a 1 or 2 rating because I think that it's an almost impossible accomplishment for a band to shit one out. 2-4 just depends on my level of enjoyment, originality, replay value and whatnot.
I have a hard time with ratings sometimes, too. It makes it easier for me when a band has put out multiple albums so I can kind of weigh how much I like on over another. Obviously just because I like one album the most won't mean it is a 5- in fact my list of 5's has dwindled considerably over the years as my appeal and connection to some stuff has worn. |
Brostep
03.07.16 | simple process:
1) go to random.org
2) generate a number between 1 and 10
3) rate the album accordingly
though because of #staffprivileges I can do 1-50 instead woo! |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | that joke was made already bro |
Avagantamos
03.07.16 | gut feeling pretty much. sometimes hard to decide between 3.5 and 4 |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | 4 means it's better than 3.5
ur welcome |
pizzamachine
03.07.16 | If I don't like it I 2 it, if I like it I 5 it.
BOOM |
macman76
03.07.16 | rate with your heart |
Cryptkeeper
03.07.16 | The Sickness is the only rating where I threw objectivity conpletely out of the window. |
Trebor.
03.07.16 | 1.0 - shit
1.5 - shite
2.0 - garbage
2.5 - waste of time
3.0 - not good
3.5 - average
4.0 - fuck
4.5 - whatever
5.0 - OK |
anarchistfish
03.07.16 | 1. unlistenable
1.5 boring af
2 like one good song
2.5 like 2 or 3 good songs
3 like 3 or 4 good songs
3.5 half great. go back to it for a few days after
4 excellent most of the way through. listening for a few weeks
4.5 great songs/music almost the whole way through. lots of high quality music too
5 amazing almost all the way through. usually have background reasons why I love these too. fit perfectly in the context of my life |
anarchistfish
03.07.16 | 4.5 listening for months after, some parts for years. all very rough, if i am offended by an album for personal reasons I will rank it lower. one outstanding track can bump up a rating. an album where I don't really enjoy any part in whole but which sounds good in parts won't be treated as harshly. |
torts
03.07.16 | 5. sick cunt
4.5. sick
4. good shit
3.5 good
3. aii
2.5. eh
2. pretty shit
1.5. shit
1. shit cunt |
ArsMoriendi
03.07.16 | For me it's a very complicated and possibly incredibly stupid process, but it's my process.
1.I individually rate each song on my iTunes: (1 star: painfully unlistenable/deletable, 2: very poor/only keeping the song because it helps the album be complete, 3: pretty meh, but not terrible, 4: good/very good, 5: amazing/highlight)
2.Then I average all of the ratings together (if the average is 3.7 or lower, I give the album 1 star, 3.8-3.9 = 2 stars, 4.0-4.1 = 3 stars, 4.2 = 4 stars, 4.3+= 5 stars)
3. Next, I translate this to sput scores: 1 star = anywhere from a Sputnik 1-2.5, 2 stars=anywhere from a 2-3, 3 stars = 2.5-3.5, 4 stars = 3.5-4.5, 5 stars = 4.5-5. The range accounts for personal feelings/flow/anything that the raw scores of individual songs couldn't determine alone. For instance if it gets 5 stars, but I don't think it's exactly perfect, I'll give it a 4.5 on Sput. Or if it gets 4 stars but it seems kind of too flawed for that, I'll give it a 3.5 on Sput and so on.
I'm nuts, I know, but it works :D |
Trebor.
03.07.16 | Is twinkly emo or chill electronic music - 5.0
anything else - 1.0 |
UpwardSpiral
03.07.16 | I have about 20 albums rated 5, although the only one I consider truly perfect is Leaves. Cannot rate it higher though. |
dbizzles
03.07.16 | Holy shit, Ars. Holy shit. |
hal1ax
03.07.16 | ya wtf is wrong with u |
dbizzles
03.07.16 | Hey, at least he's thorough and consistent. |
Cryptkeeper
03.07.16 | It's music not math |
torts
03.07.16 | no one like ars not surprising that he treats music rating on the internet like calculus |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | "It's music not math"
music IS math
-torts |
torts
03.07.16 | who are you again |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | taking an average is not nearly as tasking/complex as u think it is
stay in school y'all |
torts
03.07.16 | its not the averaging that makes it stupid, its how he explained it |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | "not surprising that he treats music rating on the internet like calculus"
-torts |
Valkyrion
03.07.16 | >I have about 20 albums rated 5, although the only one I consider truly perfect is Leaves. Cannot rate it higher though.
dat when you lower all your other scores by .5 :] |
Tyler.
03.07.16 | Someone always makes this same exact list like once a month |
worthlessscab
03.07.16 | I compare it to what I've already heard and also base it on emotional involvement, creativity, achievement, enjoyment and overall experience |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | haven't u noticed? every list that's been made since 2009 is the same. it's a cycle, they just repeat themselves forever |
Chortles
03.07.16 | lots of ppl thinking too hard about it itt |
macman76
03.07.16 | "haven't u noticed? every list that's been made since 2009 is the same. it's a cycle, they just repeat themselves forever"
There are 64 lists from metallicas list search that have the word "ranked" as part of the list title |
SCREAM!
03.07.16 | 1 = 0-20% (cuz they skimped out on our 0.5)
1.5 = 20-30%
2 = 30-40%
2.5= 40-50%
3= 50-60%
3.5= 60-70%
4= 70-80%
4.5= 80-90%
5=90-100%
More or less tbhimo |
TheBarber
03.07.16 | I don't rate MUTHAFUCKAS |
Deathconscious
03.07.16 | i dont think about it too much. i just rate based on what im feeling, and use the 1-5 like this: 1 is fucking bad. some of the worst music ive ever heard. its offensively bad. 1.5 is just pretty fucking bad. 2 is simply not good. didnt enjoy it. 2.5 is when i feel right in between. didnt really like it, didnt hate it either. it was just really meh. 3 means it was ok, but im not too hot on it. 3.5 means i enjoyed it fairly thoroughly. 4 means i enjoyed it very thoroughly. 4.5 means i fucking loved it. 5 means its gotten under my skin, and its one of my favorite albums of all time.
its just a rating though, and overthinking it sucks the fun out of using this site. |
wham49
03.07.16 | I give a .5 bump to things that move music in a different direction, inventing a genre or are very influential, i don't give things 5 just for that but I think they deserve something for thinking for themselves, and putting themselves out there
dont give 1's what is the point of rating something that bad |
Cimnele
03.07.16 | 1 - rock music
5 - rock music |
Deathconscious
03.07.16 | 1 all country and rap
5 coldplay, cause its real music. for the soul. and amon amarth. cause its death metal with FEELING, not that stupid gore crap. |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | i kno a few people like dat |
bach
03.07.16 | impulse [13455] honestly. and i'm really generous too. if i like something it's probably gonna get a 4 or above. if i think it's ok it's a 3.5 or 3. i tend not to rate things i don't like either |
theBoneyKing
03.07.16 | 1.0 I don't give, I'm sure there's plenty of stuff I'd find truly awful but I choose not to listen to such albums.
1.5 - The album is either offensively bad or just generates absolutely no interest throughout, with a redeeming moment here or there.
2.0 - The album is generally poorly construed or unmemorable, if nothing stands out after a couple listens I usually throw a 2 on it and probably never listen to it again. May not be offensive to the ears.
2.5 - The album on the whole is an okay listen with a couple standout moments but doesn't hold together as a whole, generally unsatisfying.
3.0 - The album is enjoyable, though it wears off quickly. If it's part of a discography I generally like more I will revisit it occasionally.
3.5 - The album is very enjoyable throughout, with a couple unsatisfying moments, so it fails to be completely engrossing. Several of the songs have strong emotional impact. Has a strong appeal to fans of the style. Worth revisiting.
4.0 - The album is thoroughly enjoyable, with maybe a weak track or two. Has a strong emotional core, and holds together very well. Will revisit frequently.
4.5 - The album is engrossing, nearly perfect. Will revisit consistently. Usually deserves the terms "masterpiece" or "classic" despite not being "perfect".
5.0 - Every song is emotionally engaging. The album has a strong personal meaning. Does not dull with time. It may phase in and out of my rotation, but whenever I listen to it I am reminded of why I loved it in the first place. |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | i'm with boneyking here |
Hep Kat
03.07.16 | Through a series of misdirection games taught to me by Master Giett before his passing at the hands of the Yinchorri.
RIP |
Cryptkeeper
03.07.16 | 1 Things without distortion/things with distortion that suck
5 Things with distortion |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | cringe |
Cryptkeeper
03.07.16 | Please stop taking things seriously |
Mystletainn
03.07.16 | I feel like this list is made every 6 months.
I rate according to my taste first and secondly by genre. |
ArsMoriendi
03.07.16 | Since torts is my biggest critic, I feel extra justified in my rating lol. |
SitruK6
03.07.16 | By genre?
how does that work? |
Asdfp277
03.07.16 | cisgenre is insta-shit |
TheCrocodile
03.07.16 | 1- the struggle was all too real
1.5- ass
2- couple of cool ideas/songs with mostly shit OR sort of bad throughout
2.5- forgettable OR too inconsistent
3- aight
3.5- Cool album with flaws
4- Awesome stuff either let down by a few shortcomings OR by a weak emotional connection
4.5- Perfect with a lil idk
5- perfect. |
ArsMoriendi
03.07.16 | I've been doing steps 1 and 2 since way before I joined Sputnik tbh.
|
Mystletainn
03.07.16 | If you're rating a metal album you just have to have faith in trvth and the rating will reveal itself to you. |
dbizzles
03.07.16 | kvlt = 5
not kvlt = 1 |
Cryptkeeper
03.07.16 | But what is trve kvlt |
Cosmoblue
03.07.16 | 5 - There can't be a moment on the album I don't like, everything has to be perfect
4.5 - Can only have a few minor flaws/sections I don't think fit or just don't like
4 - Idk what to say about this one, just a slight step down from the 4.5 tier
3.5 - A great album, but not amazing by any means. I can come back to these albums and enjoy them every now and then, though I would much rather listen to something better.
3 - Slightly above average. I can enjoy these albums, but I more than likely won't ever revisit them more than once or twice.
2.5 - Average/meh albums. Maybe a couple good tracks, but that's it. Nothing is really memorable.
2 - Not the worst of the worst, but just albums I really don't enjoy at all.
1.5 - Terrible records I have difficulty getting through, and begin to wonder what other people are seeing (hearing) in it.
1 - What the fuck is this shit |
demigod!
03.07.16 | i just click around a bunch |
Cygnatti
03.07.16 | intuition+comparison |
AlexKzillion
03.07.16 | 5 - Classic, all time favorite.
4.5 - Potential to be a 5 but not a enough listens/amazing but just not a 5
4 - Very solid, come back to often
3.5 - Flawed but will still return to
3 - Good but nothing special
2.5 - Inconsistent/Boring/Uninteresting
2 - Uninteresting/At some points really bad, usually has one track that prevents it from a 1.5
1.5 - Bad, but just good enough that I can finish, no redeeming qualities
1 - Albums so bad I can't even finish because they are so bad, will never ever return to. |
Gameofmetal
03.08.16 | why is this a question tho? like it's simple. just rate shit based on how much you like it. blows my mind how a list like this pops up every once in a while. |
Keyblade
03.08.16 | the sput rating system
5 - Rules hard, reserved for the sacred Deftones, Radiohead and Converge
4.5 - Pretty good
4 - It's ok
3.5 - Meh
3 - 1 - Eww |
Asdfp277
03.08.16 | literally no |
SitruK6
03.08.16 | @Gameofmetal
Well i cannot answer for other people who have made lists like this, but for me personally it was just the fact that i was overthinking about how much each albums deserves.
after making this list i feel like i have a better idea of what each rating means to me ^_^
|
Keyblade
03.08.16 | lighten up dawg |
Tunaboy45
03.08.16 | how hard did it make your cock? rate accordingly
|
Vetimus
03.09.16 | If its good it gets a good rating, if it sucks it gets a sucky rating.
that is all. |
H61
04.04.16 | Test |
Sinternet
04.04.16 | test [2] |
Treeman
04.04.16 | 1 - seeing blood in my stool
5- seeing blood in my stool but pretty pleased otherwise |
jagride
04.04.16 | not that dissimilar to the sputnik rating blurbs, 3 means i actually like it
used to rate nearly everything i listened to but since that's a lot, going to the trouble of extensively assigning ratings to music you think is garbage is pretty lame. for a while i've been moving towards using ratings mostly to catalog stuff i physically own - most of the records ive rated 3 and above fit that category |
